RIAA Says No Mystery In Rash of College Complaints 255
Doug Lederman writes "As colleges receive exploding numbers of complaints from recording companies about alleged illegal downloading of music files, theories abound about whether the industry is changing its criteria, aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers. But after weeks of silence, the president of the RIAA says No: Better technology, he asserts, is merely resulting in better enforcement."
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)
Art will cost money for business purposes only (Score:3, Interesting)
I, myself, am creating art. Photos and a bit of music. Also some mediocre short stories. While my products are definitely not good enough yet to ask money for them, I can understand the desire to earn a living by doing what you like the most.
I think that all digital art will become free for those who do not want to earn money from it. If a magazine wants to use one of your photos or if a corporation wants to use your music for an add, you should get paid. The rest will come from donations from fans or derived products.
But yes, you wont be able to earn as much money that way and the RIAA will milk the old system dry before adapting. This is logical. Even the oil industry will pull something like that. I'm sure of it.
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)
Turns out that it wasn't. It was far, far worse.
Not better technology, just a wider net (Score:5, Interesting)
A) They are more likely to deter casual, nontechnical users who get them, most of whom will either stop or reduce their P2P use.
B) They are more likely to scare others; e.x. "Yo, did you hear? Joe Smith got a warning about music downloading!".
C) Many colleges and ISPs (Dartmouth and Optimum Online, at least) will often reduce the speed of account holders who have been the target of DCMA letters.
D) For settlement offers, the wider the net, the more fish you catch. If people put up an ounce of resistance, just drop the extortion attempt and move on to the next guy.
Not really that surprising. The technology hasn't improved, the RIAA is just sending out more letters.
Re:actual infringers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In other words... (Score:2, Interesting)
The only folks i've heard of so far are Amy Winehouse (whos voice I hate more than Macey Grays'), NIN and Radiohead. I bought NIN and Radiohead's albums (FLAC for NIN, CD for Radiohead), and I also bought 10,000 Days by Tool.
Apart from that, i'll gladly listen to my Maiden, Metallica, Guns 'n' Roses, and all my other music many more times. I can wait out this game indefinately, as i'm missing nothing.
I will admit, however, that I do download CC licenced music. I'm not overly impressed so far, though.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
(shrug)
I steal music. I'm a thief taking other people's labor (they produce; I don't pay their wages). I freely admit that, and the reason I do it is because I don't want to pay $10-15 to buy a CD that contains just one good song. (Nor do I want to pay $1 to get compressed/lossy-sounding AAC files.) So I steal to get what I want.
If the artist is exceptionally good, or releases a greatest hits album that collects 5-6 albums in one space, THEN I will buy the thing because it's worthwhile. I've got a whole bookshelf filled with greatest hits albums.
Maybe RIAA should focus more on providing WHAT I WANT,
rather than beating me over the head with lawsuits.
i.e. RIAA should try better customer service.
Re:Missed one; (Score:5, Interesting)
E) Students move from a visable P-P application back to secure sneaker-net trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet [wikipedia.org]
Instead of a dribble of songs from slow university connections, a few DVD's, loaded iPods, and USB external hard drives get lent outside of trackable channels.
For my middle school kids, it's the norm. They have Comcast and no P-P software. It's all sneaker net and iPods. I'm suprised the RIAA isn't bringing up the RIO lawsuit again and try to fight iPods and other external hard drives as massive tools of infringement. After all, in their book, tools for making availiable is a crime.
The real reason... (Score:2, Interesting)
What's interesting ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm responsible for DMCA notices at my campus, and after a 1.5 year lull without a single one, I've received over 2 dozen, none of which are attributable to any IP given out by our DHCP server. One IP was a terminal server with no access to the internet.
(I'm posting anonymously because I don't like the spotlight. Talk to any college staff member and you'll get similar comments about this recent flurry of notices.)
My version of the real reson... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In other words... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the music is as bad as you say, why do people want to steal it? All I see here over and over are people railing against popular music, you don't have to like it or buy it but it's called pop music because it's just that, popular. (Que rants proclaiming just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. "Good" is completely subjective, but there certainly is a correlation between popular and good. You may hate Britney Spears, but if every person gets a vote then a hell of a lot of people vote that her music is "good". You don't get any more say than teenage girls, despite your obviously sophisticated musical palette. Anyone who likes music you don't is stupid, right? )
Itunes has proven that many people in fact will pay for todays music, they just don't want to go to the mall to pay $18 for a full cd when they only like one song. The RIAA's problem isn't putting out crap music, it's that they refuse to give the consumers what they want to pay for (DRM free single song downloads).
Re:What's interesting ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Finals ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
I purchase music two ways. One is from independent artists. In which case, the artist gets 100% of the proceeds.
The other, is at the Good Will or other used store. Where I "stick it to the man". No money goes to the record companies.
Re:I call BS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying that a new CD should cost $20, but to say that since the cost to produce is negligable that the cost to the consumer should be similarly low is not valid. One dollar per Non-DRM song seems pretty reasonable to me, although I think that the money should go to the artists and mixers, not record company execs.
Re:In other words... (Score:1, Interesting)
The big labels are evil. They do not, I repeat, DO NOT actually give any of the money they make to most artists. New artists actually have to pay the record labels, and every red cent of profit from their first few albums goes to the label (as well as ownership of everything). Since they have no money, the artists can't sue the record labels (not that it would work with nasty contracts they're forced to sign).
I, and anyone else that actually cares about music, want to see these companies go out of business by whatever means necessary. The big labels ignore or deliberately break most of the regulations that govern them. If the government chooses to do nothing in light of this evil, I'd argue that people who care about music have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to go after the record labels any way they can.